Then - once again - there is no reason to worship this god, because as you've just said, whatever his action, it will automatically have been the perfect action. God feeds the world, god picks his nose, god stops all rapists, god scratches his eyebrows....it's all one and the same. When whatever action is taken become by definition perfect, then no praise can attach to that being. Especially since - as you said - god does not think and consider, he just reacts without need for thought. Sorry Lukvance, but the more you describe your god, the less worthy of praise or worship it becomes.

I think you don't have any valuable reason to worship anything. If you do, please enlighten me, what is this reason? And how this reason does not apply to God?Also, you forgot about the fact that God doesn't "live" in time in your counter argument. You are talking about a god living in time.

How would an infallible brain get 10/10 on every quizz if he is not omniscient?

I understand that you might think the infallible brain won't answer anything in the paper if he doesn't have the correct answer. But he won't have 10/10.So if you answer is "it's impossible for an infallible brain to get 10/10 on EVERY quizz" then we might have to define what is a wrong answer in the Quizz. For my quizz, not answering is giving a wrong answer. If not, all my student would always leave all the questions blank and always get 10/10, that would defy the purpose of my quizz.

No. I believe that the representation of "St-Peter" and the "choices" depends on how the person believe the afterlife to be.Let's say there is an atheist who, even with all this compelling evidence of a greater being existing, still don't want to believe in him because it is too much constricting or "non sense", he might not realize he is dead, think that he is only dreaming and the representation of Saint-Peter and Heaven's door won't make him believe more, it will still make as much sense as any miracle he ever seen or heard of, he could dismiss it with the back of his hand logic/science and say "no" to God for the last time.

Then - once again - there is no reason to worship this god, because as you've just said, whatever his action, it will automatically have been the perfect action. God feeds the world, god picks his nose, god stops all rapists, god scratches his eyebrows....it's all one and the same. When whatever action is taken become by definition perfect, then no praise can attach to that being. Especially since - as you said - god does not think and consider, he just reacts without need for thought. Sorry Lukvance, but the more you describe your god, the less worthy of praise or worship it becomes.

I think you don't have any valuable reason to worship anything. If you do, please enlighten me, what is this reason? And how this reason does not apply to God?

If you don't have an answer, go on the attack. Sorry Lukvance, but that's an old dodge. Why not try sometimes to actually address a post, rather than dodge it? You may get some more respect, you may even earn a convert or two. But to simply ignore the points being made to you? All it shows is that you don't have an answer.

Must be terrible, not being able to explain how the god you follow is actually worthy of respect. I do feel rather sorry for you.

No. I believe that the representation of "St-Peter" and the "choices" depends on how the person believe the afterlife to be.Let's say there is an atheist who, even with all this compelling evidence of a greater being existing, still don't want to believe in him because it is too much constricting or "non sense", he might not realize he is dead, think that he is only dreaming and the representation of Saint-Peter and Heaven's door won't make him believe more, it will still make as much sense as any miracle he ever seen or heard of, he could dismiss it with the back of his hand logic/science and say "no" to God for the last time.

So whose fault is it that heaven would seem indistinguishable from a dream?

Is that the best your god can do? Contour up visions when someone's dying and their critical thinking abilities are dying? Seriously?If your god sees that an atheist still thinks that he is dreaming, he will find out a way to awake him and how him "Hey defiance, you're not dreaming anymore, I can show you by ________(insert power to make me believe that I am not dreaming)."

Then once he uses that power to show me that I am not dreaming, I'd say "Holy shit! Lukvance was right! Sorry, Yahweh, your people aren't good at proving things. Sorry that I used my logic and reasoning to reach conclusions. (Sarcasm)."

If after that, Yahweh tells me im going to hell, then he is not benevolent.

Of course, this will never happen; God isn't real.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

How would an infallible brain get 10/10 on every quizz if he is not omniscient?

I understand that you might think the infallible brain won't answer anything in the paper if he doesn't have the correct answer. But he won't have 10/10.So if you answer is "it's impossible for an infallible brain to get 10/10 on EVERY quizz" then we might have to define what is a wrong answer in the Quizz. For my quizz, not answering is giving a wrong answer. If not, all my student would always leave all the questions blank and always get 10/10, that would defy the purpose of my quizz.

Well, let us consider what the purpose of a quiz is. A quiz is meant to test the knowledge of a person or their ability to apply the knowledge that they have. So, if I score 9 out of 10 on a quiz, then that was the best I could do based on my knowledge and ability. Of course writing “I don’t know” or nothing at all is not the correct answer, but it also isn’t a mistake, wrong or an error either.

I respond to this line of thinking in the post you are responding to. Please read it again.

Explain to me how it is a mistake or wrong to admit lack of knowledge when knowledge is lacking.

I personally can't think of why it would be. I'm trying to. To me, the mistake would be not admiting lack of knowledge when knowledge is lacking. How can both admitting and not admitting a lack of knowlege be a mistake or wrong? If both are a mistake or wrong, then simply not knowing everything is a mistake or wrong.

Why even use the words mistake or wrong when defining fallible and infallible? Just say "fallible = not omniscient" and "infallible = omniscient". Further still, why use the words fallible and infallible? Just say "not omniscient" and "omniscient".

SO the subject of the thread becomes "Why [God] made me without an omniscient brain?

NOW, if that were the question, then your answer would probably be correct, Lukvance. In order to have an omniscient brain, it would probably have to be infinite.

HOWEVER, I doubt that was the orignial question. Why we don't have an omniscient brain is obvious for a number of reasons and not worth answering. But why our brains are capable of making mistakes and errors, thus making it difficult to make accurate decisions on what is best for ourselves and others, is an interesting question, one which I doubt theists have an answer for (besides the traditional "The Fall" didit or something along those lines).

Lukvance, your definitions for “Fallible” and “Infallible” say nothing about level of knowledge or awareness.

Infallible : Cannot make mistakes/cannot be wrongFallible : Can make mistakes/be wrong

Are you attempting to change the definitions to be:

Infallible : Possesses all knowledge and is aware of everything / omniscient thus cannot make a mistake or wrong decision.Fallible : limited level of knowledge and awareness / not omniscient and is capable of making mistakes or wrong decisions.

I don’t agree with these definitions as they are not part of the English language and bypass the purpose of the question. By redefining the words to be something different you are avoiding having to answer the tough question by making the question easier to answer. You answering a different and easier question does not answer the original tough question. This goes back to our discussions about you not answering my questions.

You are dodging. Of course it might be possible that you don’t realize you’re dodging. This might be your subconscious protecting your conscious from having to face reality.

Let me try to help by giving some examples of what a fallible brain does while an infallible one would not:

A person with a fallible brain might forget to take his wallet with him to the movie theater, thus missing the movie he wanted to see (if he had an infallible brain, he would not forget his wallet and then get to see the movie).

A person with a fallible brain might think he heard someone call his name, thus asking out loud “Did someone call my name” (if he had an infallible brain, he would not think someone called his name).

A person with a fallible brain might start thinking about something different while listening to someone telling them something important, thus not hearing or understanding what he was being told (if he had an infallible brain, he would not have started thinking about something different until after having listened to what the other person was telling him).

A person with a fallible brain might read the 10 step instructions on how to build something but when actually building it they remember steps 5 and 6 in reverse order (if he had an infallible brain, he would remember the steps in exact order as they were read).

I don’t want to know why I don’t know everything or why I’m not omniscient. That is an easy question I don’t care about. I want to know why I don’t remember to take my wallet with me when I know I’ll need it to see the movie I want to see. I want to know why I sometimes think someone called my name when no one did. I want to know why my brain starts thinking about something else when I’m listening to someone. I want to know why I mistakenly remember the order of 10 step instructions which I had read just an hour before.

My brain doesn’t need to know everything or be omniscient to not make those mistakes.

No. I believe that the representation of "St-Peter" and the "choices" depends on how the person believe the afterlife to be.Let's say there is an atheist who, even with all this compelling evidence of a greater being existing, still don't want to believe in him because it is too much constricting or "non sense", he might not realize he is dead, think that he is only dreaming and the representation of Saint-Peter and Heaven's door won't make him believe more, it will still make as much sense as any miracle he ever seen or heard of, he could dismiss it with the back of his hand logic/science and say "no" to God for the last time.

Your response is illogical. Logic and science doesn’t necessarily say “No” to “God” and an atheist who would think that would also be illogical. Logic and science can only review the evidence or lack of evidence presented to it in regards to the existence of “God”, and at this point it hasn’t been shown that “God” actually exists, so what exactly would logic and science be saying “No” to? Nothing. If “God” actually existed and sufficient evidence could be found for its existence then logic and science would agree that it exists. Your original scenario only presented everyone with an invite into Heaven. Even if an atheist believes him or herself to be dreaming, they very well could say “yes” to the invite. Believing it to be a dream and saying “yes” would be quite funny as you would indeed quite literally have atheists in heaven. Do some people in heaven think they are dreaming and not even realize they’re actually in heaven?

I’m not really interested in this line of thought though. It is boring, illogical and a waste of time to discuss.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

If you don't have an answer, go on the attack. Sorry Lukvance, but that's an old dodge. Why not try sometimes to actually address a post, rather than dodge it? You may get some more respect, you may even earn a convert or two. But to simply ignore the points being made to you? All it shows is that you don't have an answer.

Must be terrible, not being able to explain how the god you follow is actually worthy of respect. I do feel rather sorry for you.

I'm sorry if you don't understand why I respect God. I explained it many times in many different ways. But as I said. It's easy to critic others when you don't know yourself. You are the one dodging the question because you know how hard it is to "expose" ourselves to others critics.If you think it's inappropriate to this discussion I will gladly "discuss" your idea in another post. I will "prove" to you that your reason to worship means nothing and that the thing you worship doesn't even exist! (according this thing is different than mine of course)I think you don't have any valuable reason to worship anything. If you do, please enlighten me, what is this reason? And how this reason does not apply to God?

Well, let us consider what the purpose of a quiz is. A quiz is meant to test the knowledge of a person or their ability to apply the knowledge that they have. So, if I score 9 out of 10 on a quiz, then that was the best I could do based on my knowledge and ability. Of course writing “I don’t know” or nothing at all is not the correct answer, but it also isn’t a mistake, wrong or an error either.

I respond to this line of thinking in the post you are responding to. Please read it again.

Tell me again how can I "test the knowledge of a person or their ability to apply the knowledge that they have" when they never answer a question. Why would someone with a fallible brain risk answering a question? How will I be able to differentiate the infallible brain to the fallible one using the test if there are blanks "allowed"?Of course a stupid brain will "guess" but a smart fallible brain will just leave all the question blank. And an infallible brain will give me the same paper if he doesn't know the subject.Let's say that he know some parts of the subject? He answered question 1, 5 and 7 correctly. How do I know it's an infallible brain?

If you don't have an answer, go on the attack. Sorry Lukvance, but that's an old dodge. Why not try sometimes to actually address a post, rather than dodge it? You may get some more respect, you may even earn a convert or two. But to simply ignore the points being made to you? All it shows is that you don't have an answer.

Must be terrible, not being able to explain how the god you follow is actually worthy of respect. I do feel rather sorry for you.

I'm sorry if you don't understand why I respect God. I explained it many times in many different ways. But as I said. It's easy to critic others when you don't know yourself. You are the one dodging the question because you know how hard it is to "expose" ourselves to others critics.If you think it's inappropriate to this discussion I will gladly "discuss" your idea in another post. I will "prove" to you that your reason to worship means nothing and that the thing you worship doesn't even exist! (according this thing is different than mine of course)I think you don't have any valuable reason to worship anything. If you do, please enlighten me, what is this reason? And how this reason does not apply to God?

you don't respect other mass murderers throughout time,why is God as a murderer different from a murderer like Stalin? Both God and Stalin had reason THEY used to justify murder,both in a person of minimal reasoning skills would view as unjustified and WRONG.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

HOWEVER, I doubt that was the orignial question. Why we don't have an omniscient brain is obvious for a number of reasons and not worth answering. But why our brains are capable of making mistakes and errors, thus making it difficult to make accurate decisions on what is best for ourselves and others, is an interesting question, one which I doubt theists have an answer for (besides the traditional "The Fall" didit or something along those lines). [...] You answering a different and easier question does not answer the original tough question.

Oh the answer to the original question is not omniscience, it's freedom. (Reply #1)I can try to answer your view of the question even if I believe this view needs to be corrected. Let me comment the examples you gave me.

Quote

A person with a fallible brain might forget to take his wallet with him to the movie theater, thus missing the movie he wanted to see (if he had an infallible brain, he would not forget his wallet and then get to see the movie). A person with a fallible brain might read the 10 step instructions on how to build something but when actually building it they remember steps 5 and 6 in reverse order (if he had an infallible brain, he would remember the steps in exact order as they were read).

In order to not forget one must remember everything.(name address phone number...etc) some people can do that, do they have infallible brain?In a quizz, could the infallible brain leave the answer blank if he doesn't remember/he doesn't know where he put his keys?

Quote

A person with a fallible brain might think he heard someone call his name, thus asking out loud “Did someone call my name” (if he had an infallible brain, he would not think someone called his name).

In order to not think someone called his name the infallible brain must have had infallible ears.In a quizz could the infallible brain leave the answer blank if he didn't ear/he doesn't know someone called his name?

Quote

A person with a fallible brain might start thinking about something different while listening to someone telling them something important, thus not hearing or understanding what he was being told (if he had an infallible brain, he would not have started thinking about something different until after having listened to what the other person was telling him).

Could you imagine that at a table? The person with infallible brain couldn't eat or move his arms (which is basically thinking about something else) he would be immobile, listening to one person talking. What will happen if there is 2? will he ignore the 2nd person?God created us as social beings, according to this example a fallible brain is better.Let's say that we discussed politics and religion. In a quizz, one could ask what was the subject(s) discussed at the table and the people with infallible brain would answer what? Politics? Religion? Both? or blank?

you don't respect other mass murderers throughout time,why is God as a murderer different from a murderer like Stalin? Both God and Stalin had reason THEY used to justify murder,both in a person of minimal reasoning skills would view as unjustified and WRONG.

If, like me, you believe that the old testament is just a story, God is not a mass murderer. But that is why *I* worship him. What do YOU worship? and why?

Tell me again how can I "test the knowledge of a person or their ability to apply the knowledge that they have" when they never answer a question.

A quiz is part of a course or class, the goal is to pass the course or class. The goal is to learn. If they don’t answer then they don’t know, which means they can’t pass the course or class. They haven’t proven that they learned the content of the class or course.

How will I be able to differentiate the infallible brain to the fallible one using the test if there are blanks "allowed"?Of course a stupid brain will "guess" but a smart fallible brain will just leave all the question blank. And an infallible brain will give me the same paper if he doesn't know the subject.Let's say that he know some parts of the subject? He answered question 1, 5 and 7 correctly. How do I know it's an infallible brain?

Your questions are irrelevant and you dodging from having to admit that your answer is incorrect and you don’t know why your god (assuming its existence) would make us with fallible brains. There is no point to a fallible brain pretending to be an infallible brain and we are not here to determine if a brain is fallible or infallible. All that matters is the implications of having a fallible brain vs. an infallible brain. Claiming ignorance wouldn’t be proof of having an infallible brain. Why would someone with a fallible brain try to prove they have an infallible brain? Why would a person with an infallible brain try to prove they have an infallible brain?

Since when did we start caring about proving if a brain is actually infallible?

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

you don't respect other mass murderers throughout time,why is God as a murderer different from a murderer like Stalin? Both God and Stalin had reason THEY used to justify murder,both in a person of minimal reasoning skills would view as unjustified and WRONG.

If, like me, you believe that the old testament is just a story, God is not a mass murderer. But that is why *I* worship him. What do YOU worship? and why?

Well,I think both Ot and NT are just stories,which have little or no relevance in the 21st century. I worship nothing,and see nothing in any religion worthy of any worship.

If the stories of the OT are just "stories",how can you take NT "stories" truth in your eyes. The stories of the NT WERE WRITTEN LONG AFTER THE ALLEGED DEATH of your Messiah,hardly solid base if you dismiss the OT.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Since when did we start caring about proving if a brain is actually infallible?

I care about proving it because I think a infallible brain must be omniscient. You think that it doesn't have to. I am demonstrating that it must by asking the question "how do you know the said brain to be infallible if you cannot distinguish brains between infallible and fallible?"Meaning that, according to your rules of quiz, I can claim my brain to be infallible meaning that God did not make me with a fallible brain.

If the stories of the OT are just "stories",how can you take NT "stories" truth in your eyes. The stories of the NT WERE WRITTEN LONG AFTER THE ALLEGED DEATH of your Messiah,hardly solid base if you dismiss the OT.

The more we learn about the NT the more it proves to be historically just. So, even if it was indeed written down after the death of Jesus, the more you learn about history, the more you find the NT is real history. That is why I believe in the NT to be factual when the old is not.

HOWEVER, I doubt that was the orignial question. Why we don't have an omniscient brain is obvious for a number of reasons and not worth answering. But why our brains are capable of making mistakes and errors, thus making it difficult to make accurate decisions on what is best for ourselves and others, is an interesting question, one which I doubt theists have an answer for (besides the traditional "The Fall" didit or something along those lines). [...] You answering a different and easier question does not answer the original tough question.

Oh the answer to the original question is not omniscience, it's freedom. (Reply #1)I can try to answer your view of the question even if I believe this view needs to be corrected. Let me comment the examples you gave me.

Apparently you haven’t been following the conversation (or you’re trolling me). I’ve been showing why your answer is incorrect with numerous points, you just keep ignoring the points and are now trying to dodge by diverting the topic to something else.

In order to not forget one must remember everything.(name address phone number...etc) some people can do that, do they have infallible brain?

I have no way of actually knowing if they do or do not have an infallible brain. Technically an infallible brain would remember accurately everything it does in fact know. I doubt however that people with excellent memories have perfect memories. Do you have evidence of your claim that some people have perfect memories?

You’re attempting to divert the subject to proving infallibility which is irrelevant to the discussion and nothing but a dodge.

I think you might want to read up on memory and how it works. When we forget, it is actually a mistake being made by the brain. An Infallible brain doesn’t make mistakes, so it wouldn’t forget.

In a quizz, could the infallible brain leave the answer blank if he doesn't remember/he doesn't know where he put his keys?

Non Sequitur. First of all, a person an infallible brain would remember or know where he put his keys. Secondly, the location of his keys would have no impact on leaving a blank answer on quiz. If the question was, do you know where your keys are, then the answer wouldn’t be blank as they would know where their keys are.

In order to not think someone called his name the infallible brain must have had infallible ears.In a quizz could the infallible brain leave the answer blank if he didn't ear/he doesn't know someone called his name?

Wow, you really have no clue what you are talking about do you. Okay, another lesson, what we hear is interpreted by the brain based on how our ears function. Our ears being fallible or infallible is non sequitur.

Your question is non sequitur as well as the brain correctly interpreting what it hears or doesn’t hear has no relation to not answering a question on a quiz. If the question was, did someone call your name, then technically blank would be correct as no one called their name.

Could you imagine that at a table? The person with infallible brain couldn't eat or move his arms (which is basically thinking about something else) he would be immobile, listening to one person talking. What will happen if there is 2? will he ignore the 2nd person?God created us as social beings, according to this example a fallible brain is better.Let's say that we discussed politics and religion. In a quizz, one could ask what was the subject(s) discussed at the table and the people with infallible brain would answer what? Politics? Religion? Both? or blank?

Now you’re attempting to obfusticate the point.

Sod off.

I’m done with you.

I am curious about one thing though, why is your faith so shallow that you can’t admit when you’re wrong or don’t have all the answers?

« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 06:21:57 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

If the stories of the OT are just "stories",how can you take NT "stories" truth in your eyes. The stories of the NT WERE WRITTEN LONG AFTER THE ALLEGED DEATH of your Messiah,hardly solid base if you dismiss the OT.

The more we learn about the NT the more it proves to be historically just. So, even if it was indeed written down after the death of Jesus, the more you learn about history, the more you find the NT is real history. That is why I believe in the NT to be factual when the old is not.

history is written by the ones who win,it has nothing really to do with actual history.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Since when did we start caring about proving if a brain is actually infallible?

I care about proving it because I think a infallible brain must be omniscient. You think that it doesn't have to. I am demonstrating that it must by asking the question "how do you know the said brain to be infallible if you cannot distinguish brains between infallible and fallible?"

I’ve already shown that an infallible brain doesn’t have to be omniscient. I don’t need to be able to distinguish if a brain is infallible or fallible, it either is infallible or it is fallible regardless of whether I distinguish it or not.

No, what you’re actually doing is trying to obfusticate the discussion because you can’t admit you’re wrong and don’t have an answer.

EDIT:

Actually, how do you distinguish the difference between infallible and omnicient? If you can't then why use two different words with different definitions to mean the same thing?

Meaning that, according to your rules of quiz, I can claim my brain to be infallible meaning that God did not make me with a fallible brain.

My rules of quiz? What are you talking about? I’m not changing the rules of the quiz.

Dude, I really don’t think we’re going to get anywhere in this conversation. No offense but from my perspective, your grasp of the English language and your very limited cognitive capacity is crippling to your reasoning ability.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 06:01:04 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Must be terrible, not being able to explain how the god you follow is actually worthy of respect. I do feel rather sorry for you.

I'm sorry if you don't understand why I respect God. I explained it many times in many different ways.

That's true enough. And every time I then point out how the thing you have described is not worthy of worship, you change your answer. I suppose that's one way of avoiding actually answering a question.

I think you don't have any valuable reason to worship anything. If you do, please enlighten me, what is this reason? And how this reason does not apply to God?

Well, here's a starter - I would have respect for something that is capable of choosing to take a good action. Everything you have said about your god indicates that good actions are inevitable for it - you know, exactly that same lack of free will that you claim is SO important in man. When there is only one action possible for a thing, then it is a preprogrammed automaton. I don't respect or worship my computer, why should I worship a god that operates in the exact same way?

Here's a tip for your answer - you will need to explain clearly how it is that your god is able to take actions other than the best action, while retaining its infallibility and perfection. Because those are the apparently mutually exclusive traits you wish to assign to your god. So how about breaking your habit on this forum and directly addressing that point, clearly and concisely?

Let's say there is an atheist who, even with all this compelling evidence of a greater being existing, still don't want to believe in him because it is too much constricting or "non sense", he might not realize he is dead, think that he is only dreaming and the representation of Saint-Peter and Heaven's door won't make him believe more, it will still make as much sense as any miracle he ever seen or heard of, he could dismiss it with the back of his hand logic/science and say "no" to God for the last time.

Let's stop there for a moment. Lets say that some random atheist dies and goes before ST Peter, the atheist still does not believe because this all appears to be a dream. Is that just cause to toss him into a lake of fire for all eternity?

I take issue with your attempt to claim that it is wilfull ignorance or somehow that failure to believe is a byproduct of not wishing to be constricted. Most atheists/agnostics do not choose to not believe. Their "failure" to believe is not a choice but rather a byproduct of reasoning (although you might contend it is "flawed reasoning")

Lets assume that the atheist simply does not like god or what he stands for when he finally comes before Saint Peter, is that good enough reason to torture him? Wouldn't it be more in keeping with gods benevolent nature to create a place for non believers and even god haters to exist, one that is not designed to torture them? A whole universe, ecosystem for people to live out their eternity that does not include having the flesh torn from their bodies? I would also think if merely not being in the presense of god (ignoring the fact that he is everywhere) was torturous, wouldn't a benevolent god give you a panic button that you can push to join him in heaven.

I keep coming back to the analogy of god as a parent and us being children. No conventional analysis of a loving parent would indicate that they would be right in killing/torturing/shunning them for simply failing to believe in you or something you said.

Dad -"Junior I once climbed that tree in the back yard" Junior -"Dad I simply do not believe your fat ass could have done that"Dad - "Get out of my house you little ingrate"

Let's stop there for a moment. Lets say that some random atheist dies and goes before ST Peter, the atheist still does not believe because this all appears to be a dream. Is that just cause to toss him into a lake of fire for all eternity?

No tossing in lake of fire for all eternity. I think being without God is worse than that. Don't Go all mad and cite the bible. I know it can be graphic on that subject.Have you ever be deeply in love?It is said that orgasms are samples of heaven and that heartbreaks are samples of hell.I believe that God is THE source for Love (better than my girlfriend) and that cutting off that source is hell.

Quote

Lets assume that the atheist simply does not like god or what he stands for when he finally comes before Saint Peter, is that good enough reason to torture him?

No. Who is torturing who?

Quote

Wouldn't it be more in keeping with gods benevolent nature to create a place for non believers and even god haters to exist, one that is not designed to torture them? A whole universe, ecosystem for people to live out their eternity that does not include having the flesh torn from their bodies?

Yes, I believe this is what happen.

Quote

I would also think if merely not being in the presense of god (ignoring the fact that he is everywhere) was torturous, wouldn't a benevolent god give you a panic button that you can push to join him in heaven.

Purgatory is that...God giving you the button. Hell is you saying I don't even need the button I'm sure of my choice. Anyway eternity doesn't mean a long time.

Quote

I keep coming back to the analogy of god as a parent and us being children. No conventional analysis of a loving parent would indicate that they would be right in killing/torturing/shunning them for simply failing to believe in you or something you said.Dad -"Junior I once climbed that tree in the back yard" Junior -"Dad I simply do not believe your fat ass could have done that"Dad - "Get out of my house you little ingrate"Junior - "What the hell was that all about"

Here is how I see it going :Dad -"Junior I once climbed that tree in the back yard" Junior -"Dad I simply do not believe your fat ass could have done that."Dad - "Junior you have a choice, believe me or go to your room. I won't discuss with someone who doubt my every word""Atheist" Junior - "...let's review the facts""Theist" Junior - "Ok Dad I believe you, why did you climb the tree?"

Here is how I see it going :Dad -"Junior I once climbed that tree in the back yard" Junior -"Dad I simply do not believe your fat ass could have done that."Dad - "Junior you have a choice, believe me or go to your room. I won't discuss with someone who doubt my every word""Atheist" Junior - "...let's review the facts""Theist" Junior - "Ok Dad I believe you, why did you climb the tree?"

Yep. If someone doesn't believe, threaten them. That's god all right. Don't bother to present any evidence - nope, its "accept what I say without evidence, or you're in T.R.O.U.B.L.E."Then the theists immediately caves in, in fear, and accepts whatever was said without evidence.The atheist however continues to seek evidence. Threats are not a tool that work well on people who aren't trained to submit to authority figures just on their say-so.

Frankly, I would FAR rather have the parent-child relationship that the atheist Junior has. An enquiring mind who does NOT just accept everything "because I say so" but searches for good solid reasons and evidence for the dictats being handed down.

And as a parent, I hope that if my child said to me "I'm not sure I think what you're saying is right", I hope my reaction would be "okay - I'll take some time with you to take you through it all slowly, show you my reasoning, and the evidence that backs it up."

Not "doubt me? How DARE you doubt me or question my authoritah! I banish you - don't try to talk to me until you are preapred to accept whatever I say without question."

Dad -"Junior, niggers are evil and deserve to die." Junior -"Dad I simply do not believe that you can know a person is evil just by the color of their skin."Dad - "Junior you have a choice, believe me or go to your room. I won't discuss with someone who doubt my every word""Atheist" Junior - "...let's review the facts""Theist" Junior - "Ok Dad I believe you, let's go hang some niggers!"

Dad -"Junior, homos have a disease that needs to be cured." Junior -"Dad I simply do not believe that being gay is a disease that needs to be cured."Dad - "Junior you have a choice, believe me or go to your room. I won't discuss with someone who doubt my every word""Atheist" Junior - "...let's review the facts""Theist" Junior - "Ok Dad I believe you, let's make sure to ban gay marriage!"

Dad -"Junior, your mother is a cheating whore." Junior -"Dad I simply do not believe that mom's a cheating whore."Dad - "Junior you have a choice, believe me or go to your room. I won't discuss with someone who doubt my every word""Atheist" Junior - "...let's review the facts""Theist" Junior - "Ok Dad I believe you, I'm never going to talk to mom again."

Dad -"Junior, Lukvance is an idiot. If you let him into the restaurant, he'll burn the place down." Junior -"Dad I simply do not believe that Lukvance is an idiot, and I don't think he'll burn the place down."Dad - "Junior you have a choice, believe me or go to your room. I won't discuss with someone who doubt my every word""Atheist" Junior - "...let's review the facts""Theist" Junior - "Ok Dad I believe you, Lukvance is banned from the restaurant!"

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

As well as a fact based on your responses. Your entire argument now rests on semantics regarding the word “wrong” and how it is used. You either can’t, don’t or are refusing to comprehend that the word “wrong” has multiple different conceptual meanings. Your argument over semantics regarding the word “wrong” is a deliberate attempt to make the discussion more confusing in order to conceal the truth that your answer is wrong, this is what is meant by “obfusticate the discussion”. Your attempt to interchange the conceptual meanings of the word “wrong” is either an attempt of deception or simply a shameful ploy to avoid being wrong.

Sorry, your word games do nothing to further your position, in fact they only make you appear as petty and shallow as your god.

Explain to me how it is a mistake or wrong to admit lack of knowledge when knowledge is lacking.

I personally can't think of why it would be. I'm trying to. To me, the mistake would be not admiting lack of knowledge when knowledge is lacking. How can both admitting and not admitting a lack of knowlege be a mistake or wrong? If both are a mistake or wrong, then simply not knowing everything is a mistake or wrong.

Why even use the words mistake or wrong when defining fallible and infallible? Just say "fallible = not omniscient" and "infallible = omniscient". Further still, why use the words fallible and infallible? Just say "not omniscient" and "omniscient".

SO the subject of the thread becomes "Why [God] made me without an omniscient brain?

NOW, if that were the question, then your answer would probably be correct, Lukvance. In order to have an omniscient brain, it would probably have to be infinite.

HOWEVER, I doubt that was the orignial question. Why we don't have an omniscient brain is obvious for a number of reasons and not worth answering. But why our brains are capable of making mistakes and errors, thus making it difficult to make accurate decisions on what is best for ourselves and others, is an interesting question, one which I doubt theists have an answer for (besides the traditional "The Fall" didit or something along those lines).

Lukvance, your definitions for “Fallible” and “Infallible” say nothing about level of knowledge or awareness.

Infallible : Cannot make mistakes/cannot be wrongFallible : Can make mistakes/be wrong

Are you attempting to change the definitions to be:

Infallible : Possesses all knowledge and is aware of everything / omniscient thus cannot make a mistake or wrong decision.Fallible : limited level of knowledge and awareness / not omniscient and is capable of making mistakes or wrong decisions.

I don’t agree with these definitions as they are not part of the English language and bypass the purpose of the question. By redefining the words to be something different you are avoiding having to answer the tough question by making the question easier to answer. You answering a different and easier question does not answer the original tough question. This goes back to our discussions about you not answering my questions.

You are dodging. Of course it might be possible that you don’t realize you’re dodging. This might be your subconscious protecting your conscious from having to face reality.

I have no reason to believe that the concepts of “Fallible” and “Infallible” can be applied to the human ear. Your claim is fallacious. Your claim is also further evidence of your attempt to obfusticate the discussion.

Well, let us consider what the purpose of a quiz is. A quiz is meant to test the knowledge of a person or their ability to apply the knowledge that they have. So, if I score 9 out of 10 on a quiz, then that was the best I could do based on my knowledge and ability. Of course writing “I don’t know” or nothing at all is not the correct answer, but it also isn’t a mistake, wrong or an error either.

As I’ve already said, you are ignoring the different conceptual meanings of the word “wrong”. A wrong answer on a quiz is not the same as a fallible brain being wrong. A wrong answer on a quiz is a lack of omniscience. A wrong answer on a quiz proves that a person is not omniscient. Guessing on a quiz proves a person’s brain is fallible. A brain which is infallible is an absolute position and requires far more than a quiz to prove that it is actually infallible.

You must be able to distinguish between infallible brain and fallible brains. If not I could claim that we all have an infallible brain and you won't be able to prove me wrong.

Your claim would be pointless even if I couldn’t prove you wrong. An extensive memory test would be able to distinguish an infallible brain from a fallible brain. I guess we never identified what kind of test we were referring to. I assumed we were discussing a test based on knowledge. An infallible brain would have a perfect memory and would get every question right regarding a memory test. No answer on a memory test would be proof that the brain is fallible. A brain does not need to know everything in order to have a perfect memory of what limited knowledge it does have.

You still haven’t explained to me how not knowing something is a mistake.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

I get it.You are right we don't have the same definition of infallible.There are people with "infallible brain" (at least for a set period of time) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memoryIf you make an infallible brain read the dictionary and then ask (using a quiz) question about definitions of words. It will have a perfect score. Am I understanding this correctly?In that case God made us with an infallible brain. I suppose it is evolution that "transformed" it as it is today. We don't have to remember every little details of every day. I believe that if we did, we wouldn't have enough matter to register it all. Would an infallible brain know how many heartbeat he had today? Would it have the capacity to calculate correctly giving the correct input?

Can an infallible brain give a wrong answer or not answer a complicated mathematical equation?

In any case, my point is that God did gave us such a brain and we don't have it anymore.Was the choice made by Adam and Eve wrong? in the sense of them having a fallible or infallible brain?

I get it.You are right we don't have the same definition of infallible.There are people with "infallible brain" (at least for a set period of time) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memoryIf you make an infallible brain read the dictionary and then ask (using a quiz) question about definitions of words. It will have a perfect score. Am I understanding this correctly?In that case God made us with an infallible brain. I suppose it is evolution that "transformed" it as it is today. We don't have to remember every little details of every day. I believe that if we did, we wouldn't have enough matter to register it all. Would an infallible brain know how many heartbeat he had today? Would it have the capacity to calculate correctly giving the correct input?

Can an infallible brain give a wrong answer or not answer a complicated mathematical equation?

In any case, my point is that God did gave us such a brain and we don't have it anymore.Was the choice made by Adam and Eve wrong? in the sense of them having a fallible or infallible brain?

So you are saying that because God can't do certain things he is not perfect then right? As you have stated of course there is stuff God just cant do,although he can do some stuff that will destroy our free-will,but only superficial stuff like finding our car keys

Also people who remember things (Eidetic memory) can remember things,it does not mean they can do things they have never done before,so that comparison falls short.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 10:20:32 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

In any case, my point is that God did gave us such a brain and we don't have it anymore.Was the choice made by Adam and Eve wrong? in the sense of them having a fallible or infallible brain?

Nicely done. When you have lost the argument,net and can't think of any more apologetics, just change the question and hope we won't notice.

In any case, your new question is irrelevant. If Adam has an infallible brain, then his choice by definition was correct, and we now have the fallible brains god intended. So no difference between that, and god just creating originally with fallible brains. Bad luck - another diversion fails at the first hurdle.